Sexuality itself has attracted countless people, but the exploration in this area has not stopped, behind this topic represents the reproduction of human beings, so countless scientists have gone to this direction to cultivate.
So what experiments have strange scientists done for so many years in order to study sexuality?
Ginsburg (Kinsey)
In the 1940s and 1950s, there were great taboos and taboos on sexual issues in American society, and traditional moral concepts and legal regulations limited people's discussion and research on sexual issues.
However, an American biologist named Alfred Kinsey began an unprecedented investigation to try to break society's taboos and taboos on sexual issues and open a new path for sexual research.
Ginsburg and his research team surveyed a random sample of the U.S. population, collecting more than 18,000 questionnaires and many personal interviews to learn more about respondents' sexual experiences and preferences.
They used a direct question-and-answer approach, asking respondents about sensitive topics such as homosexuality, extramarital affairs, sex, frequency of sex, and habits of sexuality.
The results come as a surprise because they run counter to traditional notions of sexuality and morality. The Ginsburg survey shows that Americans' sexuality and preferences are far more complex and diverse than people think.
For example, 10% of men and 8% of women have had a homosexual experience, and 37% of men and 13% of women have had an extramarital affair in their lifetime.
In addition, surveys have shown that many people have had sexual experiences before or outside marriage, and that many people employ a variety of postures and techniques during sex.
However, the results of the Ginsburg investigation have caused great controversy. Some believe that these data can have a negative impact on traditional sexual and moral values.
However, these data have also made many people rethink their own sexual concepts, and provide a broader and deeper research direction for sexology research.
Ginsburg's survey data, for example, has inspired many sex researchers to delve deeper into topics like homosexuality and extramarital affairs.
At the same time, Ginsburg's survey has also stimulated attention to sex education, making sex education part of the American education system.
However, we also need to recognize that Ginsburg's investigative methods and ethical guidelines were also controversial at the time.
Some accused Ginsburg's methodology of being too arbitrary and unreliable, and that it touched on many sensitive topics that could cause harm to respondents.
In addition, Ginsburg used methods in his investigation that did not conform to the ethical norms of the time, such as sexually stimulating experiments on the respondents, which are strictly prohibited under today's ethical guidelines.
It is worth mentioning that the Ginsburg survey is not the only survey about sex research, and its limitations are obvious.
For example, the survey only looked at Americans' sexuality and sexual preferences, not those of other countries and cultures.
In addition, due to the taboos and taboos of sexual issues in society at that time, many people may be reluctant to answer survey questions frankly, which affects the accuracy of the survey results.
In short, the Ginsburg survey is a groundbreaking study that has had a profound impact on changing people's perceptions and attitudes about sexuality.
Little Albert experiment
In the 2020s, American psychologists John Watson and Rosalie Rayner conducted a study called the Little Albert Experiment, which aimed to prove that emotional responses can be formed through conditioning.
The subject was a 9-month-old baby named Albert.
Before the experiment began, Albert did not have any fear response to mice and other animals.
The experiment was divided into several phases, the first of which was to expose Albert to white mice, and when Albert did not have any fear response to the rats, the experimenter would hit a steel pipe with a hammer, creating a loud sound
When Albert hears the voice, he gets scared and starts crying. After repeating this process many times, the experimenter exposed Albert to the mice again, and this time he found that the mice were not so cute anymore and began to feel scared and cry.
This proves that affective responses can be formed through conditioning.
However, the little Albert experiment caused a lot of controversy because the experimental process involved the abuse of infants. In addition to making Albert afraid of mice, the experimenter also put a dinosaur mask on him, making him afraid of rabbits, dogs, small monkeys, etc.
More worryingly, the experimenter also sexually stimulated Albert's penis with a needle, an act considered unacceptable at the time.
In addition, the experimenter did not provide Albert with adequate psychological counseling, resulting in him being in a state of fear and anxiety after the end of the experiment.
The experiment caused public outrage and moral controversy and was considered a serious violation of human morality and ethics.
Although the little Albert experiment proved that emotional responses can be formed through conditioning, this experimental method is immoral and violates the bottom line of ethics and human nature.
Experimenters should be condemned, and we should reflect on the moral and ethical principles we should follow when conducting experimental research to protect the rights and dignity of participants.
In conclusion, the little Albert experiment is a controversial study, and although the little Albert experiment proves that emotional responses can be formed through conditioning, the way it is experimented is unethical.
This kind of experiment not only violates the bottom line of ethics and human nature, but also may have adverse effects on the psychological and physical health of the subjects.
The experimenters used extremely fearful stimuli, such as loud sounds and scary animals, as well as sexual stimulation that should not occur, in violation of basic human morality and ethical principles.
The use of these experimental methods and behaviors has also attracted widespread attention and criticism because they hurt a helpless baby like Albert.
James P. D. Pruett and Harry F. Harlow
In the 1960s, American psychologists James P. D. Pruett and Harry F. Harlow conducted a study called the Perforation Test, which aimed to study the sexuality of monkeys.
In this experiment, the experimenter threaded a needle-eye suture through the monkey's vagina in order to disturb the monkey's sexuality in order to study the characteristics of its sexuality.
The monkeys used in this experiment were usually captured from the wild, so their physiological and psychological states may be greatly affected. During the experiment, the monkeys were kept in cages, and stitches with needle holes prevented them from performing normal sexual behavior.
The experiment caused widespread condemnation and controversy. Many believe that the experiment not only violated ethical guidelines, but also had adverse effects on the health and welfare of the monkeys.
Monkeys are forced to endure long-term loneliness and distress, and they are unable to carry out normal social and natural behavior, which leads to psychological problems and behavioral abnormalities in many monkeys.
In addition, the results of the experiment are controversial. Because the monkeys used in the experiment were captured from the wild, their behavior patterns may differ from those born in their natural environment.
The reliability and applicability of the experimental results has also been questioned.
The controversy over the perforation test has attracted widespread public attention and prompted stricter ethical guidelines and the development of animal protection laws.
Today, when conducting any experimental research, we must follow strict ethical guidelines and legal regulations to protect the rights and dignity of subjects and animals.
We should reflect that human research and development should constantly explore new methods, not at the expense of others.
The course and results of the experiment, not only had a bad effect on the monkeys themselves, but also caused great harm to the entire field of psychology and the ethical standards of human research.
This experiment violates basic human ethical and moral norms and ignores the rights and dignity of monkeys as sentient and emotional beings.
In addition, the experimental results of the perforation test itself have serious flaws.
The experimenters assumed that the sutures with needle holes would hinder the monkeys' sexual behavior, but in fact, the experiment only interfered with the monkeys' sexual behavior, and did not truly reflect the monkeys' natural sexual behavior.
Under today's ethical and legal norms, piercing tests are absolutely not allowed.
Every living being, whether human or animal, should be respected and protected, and any violation of these basic norms should be condemned.
Stanford Prison Experiment
In 1971, American psychologist Philip Zimbardo led a study called the Stanford Prison Experiment.
The experiment was designed to simulate prison environments to study vicious cycles in human behavior.
In the experiment, Zhimbardo divided a group of college students into police officers and inmates, and then isolated them together, simulating a prison environment.
The police group is empowered to carry out the management and control of the prison, while the prisoner group is deprived of its liberty and rights. The experimenters observed the behavior and emotional responses of the participants and recorded their interactions and performance in the experiment.
The results showed that the participants in the experiment exhibited some surprising behavior.
Members of the police team began to adopt abusive and violent methods towards the members of the prisoner group, while members of the prisoner group began to show negative emotions and behaviors, including refusal to cooperate and challenge the authority of the police.
This vicious cycle of behavior made experimenters worry that the experiment might have been beyond their control.
The results of the experiment attracted widespread public attention, but they were also accused by ethical guidelines.
Experimenters were criticized for not adequately protecting the rights and dignity of experimental participants, and the experimental design and conditions were considered unethical and inappropriate.
The controversy over the Stanford prison experiment prompted stricter ethical guidelines and legal regulations to ensure that any experimental research must follow strict ethical and legal guidelines.
At the same time, the experimental results also reveal some vicious circles in human behavior, and prompt people to reflect and explore how to prevent these behaviors from occurring.
Today, when conducting any experimental research, we must follow ethical guidelines and legal regulations and protect the rights and dignity of subjects and experimental participants.
At the same time, we also need to pay attention to the fact that scientific research should be carried out on the basis of respect for human values and moral principles in order to promote human well-being and development.
epilogue
Experimental research must follow strict ethical guidelines and legal regulations to protect the rights and dignity of experimental participants.
These experiments have played a positive role in the development of psychological research and experimental methods, while also reminding us that we need to respect human dignity and rights in all circumstances.